Solar power is getting cheaper every year

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The use of flywheels and local wind power do show the way DE power can work. Just because you can't scale it up to Gw range doesn't make it worthless.


It's already having an impact...

http://www.metering.com/news/us-solar-pv-fitch-ratings/

Quote:
A new report states that the rapid adoption of residential solar PV systems and net energy metering are potential long-term threats to investor-owned business models.
.
.
.
The firm recommends Investor Owned Utilities (IOU) and regulators design new tariff charges including a large fixed charge component to sustain their operations in line with the growing adoption of distributed generation resources.


So the recommendation is that connection fees (the bit you can't change) goes up and tarrifes down, to better secure income.

All this stuff is having an effect in real time.

Imagining that everyone can put solar on their roof, earn a tidy sum, and charge their EV on cheap overnight power is the epitome of having one's head buried in the sand.

http://www.metering.com/news/energy-storage-canada-asa/



My coop, who only buys power and does not generate any, already did this three years ago. $40 a month is the connection fee. If I produced enough power to cover all my electrical use in real time, the bill would still be $40. They would pay me their wholesale cost (~$0.037 per kwh) for any surplus power I push back to them, and not charge the delivery, generation and other fees based on normal per kwh use.

Many states in the US set limits on how much net metering the power companies would have to "buy", pay for is the real word, and they meet those caps due to consumer power generation. My state does not have any limit.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL
We are going to put those miners back to work.


I much rather have coal power, than nuclear... when New Madrid faults big league, coal won't kill us.


But either way you probably won't have power unless you have backup generator installed.

Today's modern nuclear power plants have containment systems far beyond what the Russians and the Japanese plants had.

 

[MolaKule]

In addition, I assume this means we can stop subsidizing solar and let the costs rise to realistic levels in the power generation market.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
There are very few "peakers" in middle-east countries.


OK Jimmy, you've been wheeling out legal definitions of EV's left right and centre.

What is it that makes these intermittently operated plant "not peakers"...or another one of your made up representations.

There are no official definition of hours in use of "peakers", but the speaker in Vikas linked means "peakers" are the power plants that are used less than 10%.

Now you look at Dubai summer weather all power plants are running at max capacity from around noon to 10-11PM. If power plants are used 10-11 hours a day they are not "peakers" as the speaker classified it.

Did you see the example I demonstrated ? DEWA is clearly does not need batteries as energy storage because of the 800 mWh of solar power they will get in a near future, and they still need all their power plants to run at max capacity with reduced hours, instead of 10 hours a day from noon to 10PM they need to run it only from 6PM to 10 PM.

There is no such thing as "You can only have Solar power if you have have batteries as storage, if you don't have batteries as storage then you are nt allowed to have solar power"

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
There is no such thing as "You can only have Solar power if you have have batteries as storage, if you don't have batteries as storage then you are nt allowed to have solar power"


There's a couple of things that one can pick up here
* either you are intentionaly misreading what I'm posting; or
* you are wanting to fight your own strawman as you don't like my points; or
* you don't have the slightest clue how energy markets work.

I'm typing slowly now...

These technologies are cheap while they are in disruption stage...they don't have to provide ANY ancillary services (frequency/voltage, and the ability to raise load).

They reduce the financial viability of traditional technologies, through oversupply.

The traditional technologies take a hit for so long then close the plants down.

When they do, the grid stability requirements are foisted on fewer and fewer traditional plants (and I've provided real lief examples that I'm watching in real time).

When they reach the point where these new technologies are the majority of the grid, then THEY will be the technologies that are required to follow load and dispatch targets, and the bulk of the energy. THEY will be required to provide system security, voltage, and frequency.

THEN there will need to be many, many more installed to meet the fact that they are only generating 25% of their nominal capacity over a 24 hour period AND there will need to be means to store sufficient energy to run things over night.

At THAT point, 3-5 times as many panels (MW) as there are traditional power stations PLUS storage, it gets expensive.

Already the renewables are gloating that they are making coal, nuke and gas power more epensive, and "narrowing the gap" between the technologies.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/how-renewables-are-pushing-coal-and-gas-out-of-energy-markets-85133

Quote:
The influx of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar into energy markets is forcing coal and gas fired generation out of the market, quicker than most analysts expected.

In a new analysis, the energy market team at UBS note that the pace of closures in the coal and gas sector in Europe is accelerating – even as the growth in renewables steadies and, in some countries, slows.

According to their data, some 70GW of coal and gas-fired generation shut-downs have occurred in the last five years, and the pace is increasing,


These plants are NO LONGER AVAILABLE to perform your linear lego block market model...they are gone, that's a simple fact.

Yes, your linear lego block model works in YOUR head, because you make the most simple of assumptions that the thermals and GTs will sit around losing money waiting for the period that they are needed to generate.

They won't, they will leave...I know. I've seen it

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/the-decl...st-victim-75477

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-09/port-augusta's-coal-fired-power-station-closes/7394854
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/last-coa...tched-off-88308
http://indaily.com.au/opinion/2016/05/16/sa-is-now-coal-free-and-batteries-could-fill-the-gap/

 

[HTSS_TR]

This is a definition of "peakers" by San Diego Gas and Electric company:

Quote:
Peaker plants are small power units that can reach full generating capacity
within 10 to 15 minutes to meet immediate demand on the grid. There are 24 natural gas-fired peaker units at 12 locations within SDG&E’s service area, with three peakers that are owned by SDG&E, known as Miramar Energy Facility (Miramar I and Miramar II) and Cuyamaca Peak Energy Plant. Peakers are typically called on when demand for power is highest, such as a hot summer day, or at times when loads are changing rapidly.


http://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/newsroom/factsheets/SDG%26E%20Peakers%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf

San Diego doesn't have many days above 90F, probably less than 10-15 days a year. The extra power plants SDGE runs during a normal summer day above the number they use at night are not the "peakers". According to them.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule


In addition, I assume this means we can stop subsidizing solar and let the costs rise to realistic levels in the power generation market.


The Chinese already subsidized it with their own money (or money they made in the US by selling us cheap stuff), so why not just buy them and use them?

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

THEN there will need to be many, many more installed to meet the fact that they are only generating 25% of their nominal capacity over a 24 hour period AND there will need to be means to store sufficient energy to run things over night.

At THAT point, 3-5 times as many panels (MW) as there are traditional power stations PLUS storage, it gets expensive.


When it gets cheap enough this will happen, just like we are leaving coal and single cycle GT sitting around or reducing hydro power output when there is no demand. When it is not cheap enough to do that all it takes is to remove subsidies and limit grid feed in beyond a certain amount, and it will reduce installation and slow down the growth.

The only "solution" beyond throttling input / output of a system via wasted capacity / turning off consumption / productivity loss is to store the energy. We haven't got the storage part figured out yet and won't be cheap any time soon.

 

[SHOZ]

The subsidies are tax credits. Not government giveaways. Isn't the goal when paying taxes to pay the least?

 

[Vikas]

Am I allowed to guess whose livelihood depend upon solar NOT succeeding?

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
[

The only "solution" beyond throttling input / output of a system via wasted capacity / turning off consumption / productivity loss is to store the energy. We haven't got the storage part figured out yet and won't be cheap any time soon.


Storage is not the only solution. You have DSM demand side management. A dispatcher hits a button and sheds selected loads throughout the system. Like your hot tub, a/c or other non critical load.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Am I allowed to guess whose livelihood depend upon solar NOT succeeding?


We might as well burn coal. You cant do anything else with it. Concentrate on cleaning up the exhaust and don't do stupid stuff like dumping ash in the great lakes.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Am I allowed to guess whose livelihood depend upon solar NOT succeeding?


Shot at me ?

I'm trying to explain to those who don't get it that the unicorn dust being blown around by the greens about a cheap renewable future are fabrications of the highest order...in a thread, where the self proclaimed experts wouldn't know a droop response or VAR from a chicken dinner.

I'm sitting here looking at Oz' wholesale prices, the greenest state, having pushed out all but a few NG thermals and GTs is sitting at 12.4c/KWh wholesale, while the rest are at 4c.

It's being held by green groups as a heroic triumph of good over evil, and every single issue that the state has from brownouts, blackouts, unable to be reconnected to the grid after a line failure, and poor frequency control are all failing of the "old" technology.

Yes, grids will go green.

But surely you can see that a solar grid is most expensive at night, and it turns the current status quo around...green groups are still talking of charging you cars on cheap night time energy...when in the next 20 years, it's going to be the most expensive.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nat...acf2e48eed0f826

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The subsidies are tax credits. Not government giveaways. Isn't the goal when paying taxes to pay the least?


That depends entirely on where you live. It was government giveaways up here with rates given that were 10's of cents above market value per KWh. As high as 80cKWh when the going rate was 6.5 for example.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The subsidies are tax credits. Not government giveaways. Isn't the goal when paying taxes to pay the least?


OK, but don't tax credits usually mean that some other segment of the economy is burdened with higher taxes in order to make up for those, "tax credits?" I.E., robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Direct subsidies or "tax credits" still means someone has to pay.


You seem to imply some kind of "free" lunch here and there is no such thing.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The subsidies are tax credits. Not government giveaways. Isn't the goal when paying taxes to pay the least?


That depends entirely on where you live. It was government giveaways up here with rates given that were 10's of cents above market value per KWh. As high as 80cKWh when the going rate was 6.5 for example.
This whole discussion depends on where you live. Not everywhere is it as bad as you doom and gloomers state.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The subsidies are tax credits. Not government giveaways. Isn't the goal when paying taxes to pay the least?


OK, but don't tax credits usually mean that some other segment of the economy is burdened with higher taxes in order to make up for those, "tax credits?"


You seem to imply some kind of "free" lunch here and is no such thing.
There is no free lunch. The companies earned income and get to keep more of it. No burden on anyone else. If you want to eliminate tax credits then do it for all. The renewables is a small portion of the tax credits given out by Uncle Sam. And isn't it said any tax a company has to pay will be paid for by the consumer?

Subsidies proposed for 2016

http://www.popvox.com/blog/2015/11/2...tax-extenders/

Sponsor: Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend expired and expiring tax provisions affecting individual and business taxpayers and the energy sector. Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) Congress should pursue a process of comprehensive tax reform, (2) Congress should eliminate temporary provisions in the Internal Revenue Code by making permanent those provisions that merit permanency and by allowing others to expire, and (3) a major focus of the tax reform process should be fostering economic growth and lowering tax rates by broadening the tax base.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The subsidies are tax credits. Not government giveaways. Isn't the goal when paying taxes to pay the least?


That depends entirely on where you live. It was government giveaways up here with rates given that were 10's of cents above market value per KWh. As high as 80cKWh when the going rate was 6.5 for example.
This whole discussion depends on where you live. Not everywhere is it as bad as you doom and gloomers state.


No, but the universal component is that solar and wind have been subsidized, and in many locations, continue to be, in order to get them out there. The rest of it; the operation side of things, is what Shannow's issue is with, in terms of the actual costs associated with these endeavours and the impact on stability and the subsequent cost of managing that.

Even in Ontario, getting fleeced by the provincial government, we are quite insulated from the rates that are actually being paid to these facilities, which were put in place through agreements with the government to get these developments started. While our rates have steadily increased since 2006 (and the Green Energy Act) they in no way represent the rates that are being paid to many of these providers.

Australia, as you may recall, since I posted this before, has abandoned their subsidy program and solar is now getting paid market rate, which is in the 6-7 cent range per KWh. Previously they were being paid as high at 60c/KWh. So many of those installs, which were probably mortgaged based on that return rate, are now potentially losing their shirt as the revenue disappears.

Essentially, what you see currently at home and in the USA and Canada in general is not in any way, shape, or form, a representation of what things will look like in the future if what Shannow posits takes place. That is, when you start down the path of shuttering the old plants because they become non-viable and utilities are forced to try and keep their revenue streams intact using far less energy dense and more distributed means, you will see rates increase to account for this. A great example of what that looks like is Denmark, since they have nothing but wind and solar and a few peaker GT's, another would be Germany. These countries have electricity prices that, on average, are in the 35c/KWh range, with Denmark being a bit higher usually. Now, use those figures and apply them to your current hydro bill, what does that look like? For me, I average around 650-700KWh a month. My current electricity portion of my bill is ~$110. That would more than double to $227-$245/month, putting my total utility bill (not including gas) at well over $300/month. A pretty significant increase, and this is above and beyond the already outrageous rates I am already paying that are close to double yours.

That's my personal issue with all of this, the cost. The cost to me, the cost to consumers, and the effect that has on keeping industry here (which it has already had a BIG effect on in this province with companies citing energy prices as the reason for their departure). With these companies packing up and moving out, that leaves fewer and fewer of us to bear the burden, which in turn means higher and higher costs as they keep trying to extract more and more from a source that continues to shrink by virtue of those very actions. This has been the reality here in Ontario, so the fear is well founded.

I genuinely hope it DOESN'T go the way it has in Europe, but I don't have any reason to doubt that it will.

 

[SHOZ]

Big coal and nuclear are begging for subsidies now. You OK with them keeping the inefficient plants open with tax money?

There are a lot of hidden cost in coal too that the taxpayer ends up holding the bill for too.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Big coal and nuclear are begging for subsidies now. You OK with them keeping the inefficient plants open with tax money?

There are a lot of hidden cost in coal too that the taxpayer ends up holding the bill for too.


There are hidden costs in energy in general and it is, and always has been, subsidized. However, due to the economies of scale, that has never, historically, had a significant impact on rates, primarily because these subsidies were not being levied at a per KWh rate. Darlington for example, whilst getting a 13 billion dollar refurb right now, still only gets 6.5 cents per KWh for their electricity. That 13 billion dollars (which is definitely a lot of money) guarantees 3,512MW of power for the next 30 years; 26,500 GWh (roughly) on average, per year, or a total of 795,000GWh in generation. The Darlington refurb costs us $3,701,594 per MW. Spread over 30 years, that is $123,386 per MW.

In contrast, our local solar farm cost us $45 million dollars, has an installed capacity of 10MW and has a 20 year guaranteed rate agreement with OPG for 42c/KWh, which in turn generates the utility 5.5 million dollars in revenue because of the inflated (subsidized rate). Due to this, they are anticipating paying off the cost of the facility in 9 years. If they were being paid the same rate as Darlington for their power, that revenue would be $851,190.00 and it would take them 53 years to pay off the solar farm, which has a cited life expectancy of less than half that. Compared to Darlington, this solar farm costs us directly $4,500,000 per MW, and at a fraction of the efficiency. And I said directly, because this ignores the subsidized rate they are paid, which comes out of our bills, so really the true cost is even more. If the farm lasts 15 years, it has cost us $300,000 per MW. We've already had some of the panels replaced (the Canadian climate is hard on panels) so that 15 years may be optimistic.

If we use my figures from the China discussion, we know that for every MW of Nuclear power, this equates to roughly 5GWh of annual generation. For solar, every MW equates to roughly 0.32GWh. Apply that to the above and you can see why the concerns about solar (which is vastly less efficient than wind, as per the China discussion) being expensive are well founded.

Again, these are just current examples of how it has played out, in this case, in my backyard. We know solar will get cheaper, but you still have to factor in the annual generation (in GWh) relative to what you are trying to replace. That's where it REALLY falls short, and that's why Shannow is saying you need like 4x the installed capacity to match a turbine.